Psychiatrist: Americans Are Suffering From ‘Mass Delusional Psychosis’ Because Of Covid-19

Dec. 22, 2020


Something sinister is brewing around the current atmosphere of mass panic and the fear stemming from the COVID-19 hysteria. People seem to be losing their minds when it comes to dealing with the pandemic. Perhaps, that’s basically what is happening.

Dr. Mark McDonald is board-certified in both child and adolescent psychiatry, with extensive additional training in adult psychoanalysis. He specializes in the evaluation and treatment of young people with mental illness, and his practice also serves adults, couples, and families. His opinions have been widely published in local and national news, including the Wall Street Journal and The Federalist

The True Public Health Crisis Is Psychological in Nature

Among some of these opinions, Dr. Mark McDonald believes that the real crisis is not medical in nature. The country has always had enough resources to deal with the pandemic. For example, the Navy hospital ship sent to New York City to help deal with a surge in hospitalization was turned back due to the lack of patients. So the question becomes, what is the actual public health crisis that people are really suffering from? Americans are suffering from mass insanity due to their delusional fear of COVID-19. Dr. McDonald believes the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis. In simpler words, the American public is suffering from mass insanity due to their delusional fear of COVID-19. Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25), the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus.

A Delusion Is a Fixed False Belief That’s Contrary to Reality

A Colorado family was recently kicked off an airplane because their 2-year-old daughter wouldn’t leave her mask on. Her parents weren’t even against masking — the toddler just didn’t want to have a piece of cloth smothering her face. It isn’t even enough that her parents were forcing her to put the mask on as they covered her face against her will, they were still made to exit the flight. 

Family kicked off flight after child refuses to wear maskWatch laterShareThe worst part of this unfortunate situation is the fact that no one else on the plane dared to stand up and back up the toddler’s parents against the insanity of forcing a child to cover her face against her will. Time and time again we hear studies about how children are not a vector for infection, yet everyone on the plane was deluded into thinking that a 2-year-old who refuses to put on a mask will kill everyone.   

Delusional Psychosis Achieves Nothing Useful in Reality 

In the midst of mandatory masking, have you also noticed a glaring problem about people who get hysterical at those who refuse to wear a mask? The scientific fact is that, if someone doesn’t want to assume the risk of infection, that person should be wearing an N95 (or KN95) mask at all times when they venture outside. Yet, in almost every encounter we have observed of people who tend to chastise others for not wearing a mask, they themselves have always only worn an ineffective paper or cloth mask. Why would these people act this irrationally? The answer: It’s probably delusional psychosis, as mentioned by Dr. McDonald. If someone were serious about minimizing all risk of contracting the coronavirus, the correct way of achieving that would be to properly wear an N95 mask as well as frequently wash and disinfect their hands. But those who are just putting on a cloth or paper mask, as they also constantly touch their face while they adjust their mask, are, in reality, doing practically nothing to minimize the risk of infection. 

COVID-19 Mask Types Protection High Res

Photo Credit:

Yet, more often than not, we witness people who are more concerned with making sure others assume the responsibility for everyone else. If you don’t wear a mask, you’re effectively killing grandma, scream the pro-mask Nazis. Instead of sourcing and donating N95 masks to the elderly to ensure that grandma will be able to properly minimize the risk of getting infected, they’d rather yell and threaten others who would dare question the effectiveness of even wearing a mask.

Delusional People Seek To Control How Others Perceive Reality

Instead of facing reality, the delusional person would rather live in their world of make-believe. But in order to keep faking reality, they’ll have to make sure that everyone else around them also pretends to live in their imaginary world. In simpler words, the delusional person rejects reality. And in this rejection of reality, others have to play along with how they view the world, otherwise, their world will not make sense to them. It’s why the delusional person will get angry when they face someone who doesn’t conform to their world view. Because objective reality threatens to unravel their carefully crafted imaginary world, the delusional person lashes out at others who dare act in contradiction to their delusions. Wearing a mask becomes more about social solidarity than it is about following the science. Instead of re-thinking their world view, they have to compel others to fit into the reality of their own making. Take a look at the example of how this physician in Ontario had his account suspended for daring to point out the truth. 

Gil Nimni MD tweet empty ER
Gil Nimni MD account suspended

It’s the same kind of delusion that drives religious fanatics who would kill their own daughters because she dared to “dishonor” her family. In those societies, not only are the honor killings acceptable, but the killers are normally protected by their own family members. In our society today, fueled by the COVID-induced delusion, it’s acceptable to kick a toddler off a plane for not wearing a mask when there’s evidence that toddlers rarely spread the virus. It’s acceptable for tech companies to suspend a physician’s social media account because he dared contradict the message that’s being fed to the public about COVID-19.  

You Have To Conform to Their Fake Reality, or Else 

Those who are authoritarian in nature don’t care about seeking out the truth. Rather, they’d prefer to seek out authority. It’s one of the reasons why you’re seeing so many people who’d happily approve the silencing of any medical experts whose views contradict the WHO or CDC guidelines. “Obey the rules!” becomes more important than questioning if the rules were legitimate to begin with. Those who are authoritarian in nature don’t care about seeking out the truth. But there have always been brave souls who dared to defy authority when they knew that truth was on their side.  A classic example is Galileo Galilei who dared question the ruling power’s claim that the sun revolves around the earth. It does seem rather tragic that just like Galileo, who was sentenced to a life under house arrest for daring to question the ruling authority’s narrative during the Renaissance, those of us today who are also questioning the mainstream authority’s “science” on the COVID-19 pandemic will end up like Galileo, as we too are placed under complete house arrest. If this sounds like an exaggeration, keep in mind how there have already been talks about banning access to facilities for those who’ll refuse to receive the vaccine. Ticketmaster, for example, is requiring a person’s proof of vaccination before they could attend public events. Even Andrew Yang, the former Democratic Presidential candidate, is asking if it’s possible to deploy “proof of vaccination barcodes” so we can track those who refuse to be vaccinated. 

Training Children To Live in Fear

Perhaps the most important point mentioned by Dr. Mark McDonald is the lasting negative effect this mass paranoia will have on future generations. Dr. McDonald has witnessed the highest increase of psychiatric issues among his young patients ever since the lockdowns and closures started. “They’ve suffered more than I’ve seen in my 8–9 years of private practice,” he said in a panel discussing the reopening of schools.He gave an example of a local homeowners’ association’s decision to close their private park because they noticed that children were playing on the grass without wearing a mask. This was dangerous because while the children were rolling around on the grass, they’re also touching it and therefore could potentially spread or pick up the virus from the grass and kill their grandparents when they go home with the virus. Because of this, the park had to be closed and the grass had to be disinfected with toxic chemicals in order to get rid of the virus. Imagine a child being told they can’t play outside because they might kill grandpa if they did. 

A Generation of Traumatized Children

This generation of children is basically not only being traumatized, but also being taught to accept the feeling of unjustified guilt about themselves just for being children. And that’s not an exaggeration, as the comments on YouTube showed countless adults calling the toddler who refused to put on a mask a brat for acting like a normal toddler. It’s not normal for children to grow up thinking that everyone is a danger to everyone else. We can thank the adults who are perpetuating this trauma due to their mass delusions.

calling toddler a brat for not wearing a mask

Closing Thoughts

As Dr. McDonald stated in one of his talks, he is concerned about the ultimate end of society’s delusional psychosis. It’s not unthinkable that the final outcome would be total societal control on every aspect of your life. Consider this – the endpoint of a mentally ill person is for them to be put under a controlled environment (institutionalized like an asylum) where all freedoms are restricted. And it’s looking more and more like that’s the endpoint of where this mass psychosis is heading.


Posted in COVID, medical, mental health | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media

September 20, 2020

AEI Staff

The following letter has made an impact on public health authorities not only in Belgium but around the world. The text could pertain to any case in which states locked down their citizens rather than allow people freedom and permit medical professionals to bear the primary job of disease mitigation. 

So far it has been signed by 394 medical doctors, 1,340 medically trained health professionals, and 8,897 citizens.

* * * * *

We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.

The current crisis management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage than it does any good.

We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties.

‘A cure must not be worse than the problem’ is a thesis that is more relevant than ever in the current situation. We note, however, that the collateral damage now being caused to the population will have a greater impact in the short and long term on all sections of the population than the number of people now being safeguarded from corona.

In our opinion, the current corona measures and the strict penalties for non-compliance with them are contrary to the values formulated by the Belgian Supreme Health Council, which, until recently, as the health authority, has always ensured quality medicine in our country: “Science – Expertise – Quality – Impartiality – Independence – Transparency”. 1

We believe that the policy has introduced mandatory measures that are not sufficiently scientifically based, unilaterally directed, and that there is not enough space in the media for an open debate in which different views and opinions are heard. In addition, each municipality and province now has the authorisation to add its own measures, whether well-founded or not.

Moreover, the strict repressive policy on corona strongly contrasts with the government’s minimal policy when it comes to disease prevention, strengthening our own immune system through a healthy lifestyle, optimal care with attention for the individual and investment in care personnel.2

The concept of health

In 1948, the WHO defined health as follows: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or other physical impairment’.3

Health, therefore, is a broad concept that goes beyond the physical and also relates to the emotional and social well-being of the individual. Belgium also has a duty, from the point of view of subscribing to fundamental human rights, to include these human rights in its decision-making when it comes to measures taken in the context of public health. 4

The current global measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2 violate to a large extent this view of health and human rights. Measures include compulsory wearing of a mask (also in open air and during sporting activities, and in some municipalities even when there are no other people in the vicinity), physical distancing, social isolation, compulsory quarantine for some groups and hygiene measures.

The predicted pandemic with millions of deaths

At the beginning of the pandemic, the measures were understandable and widely supported, even if there were differences in implementation in the countries around us. The WHO originally predicted a pandemic that would claim 3.4% victims, in other words millions of deaths, and a highly contagious virus for which no treatment or vaccine was available.  This would put unprecedented pressure on the intensive care units (ICUs) of our hospitals.

This led to a global alarm situation, never seen in the history of mankind: “flatten the curve” was represented by a lockdown that shut down the entire society and economy and quarantined healthy people. Social distancing became the new normal in anticipation of a rescue vaccine.

The facts about covid-19

Gradually, the alarm bell was sounded from many sources: the objective facts showed a completely different reality. 5 6

The course of covid-19 followed the course of a normal wave of infection similar to a flu season. As every year, we see a mix of flu viruses following the curve: first the rhinoviruses, then the influenza A and B viruses, followed by the coronaviruses. There is nothing different from what we normally see.

The use of the non-specific PCR test, which produces many false positives, showed an exponential picture.  This test was rushed through with an emergency procedure and was never seriously self-tested. The creator expressly warned that this test was intended for research and not for diagnostics.7

The PCR test works with cycles of amplification of genetic material – a piece of genome is amplified each time. Any contamination (e.g. other viruses, debris from old virus genomes) can possibly result in false positives.8

The test does not measure how many viruses are present in the sample. A real viral infection means a massive presence of viruses, the so-called virus load. If someone tests positive, this does not mean that that person is actually clinically infected, is ill or is going to become ill. Koch’s postulate was not fulfilled (“The pure agent found in a patient with complaints can provoke the same complaints in a healthy person”).

Since a positive PCR test does not automatically indicate active infection or infectivity, this does not justify the social measures taken, which are based solely on these tests. 9 10


If we compare the waves of infection in countries with strict lockdown policies to countries that did not impose lockdowns (Sweden, Iceland …), we see similar curves.  So there is no link between the imposed lockdown and the course of the infection. Lockdown has not led to a lower mortality rate.

If we look at the date of application of the imposed lockdowns we see that the lockdowns were set after the peak was already over and the number of cases decreasing. The drop was therefore not the result of the taken measures. 11

As every year, it seems that climatic conditions (weather, temperature and humidity) and growing immunity are more likely to reduce the wave of infection.

Our immune system

For thousands of years, the human body has been exposed daily to moisture and droplets containing infectious microorganisms (viruses, bacteria and fungi).

The penetration of these microorganisms is prevented by an advanced defence mechanism – the immune system. A strong immune system relies on normal daily exposure to these microbial influences. Overly hygienic measures have a detrimental effect on our immunity. 12 13 Only people with a weak or faulty immune system should be protected by extensive hygiene or social distancing.

Influenza will re-emerge in the autumn (in combination with covid-19) and a possible decrease in natural resilience may lead to further casualties.

Our immune system consists of two parts: a congenital, non-specific immune system and an adaptive immune system.

The non-specific immune system forms a first barrier: skin, saliva, gastric juice, intestinal mucus, vibratory hair cells, commensal flora, … and prevents the attachment of micro-organisms to tissue.

If they do attach, macrophages can cause the microorganisms to be encapsulated and destroyed.

The adaptive immune system consists of mucosal immunity (IgA antibodies, mainly produced by cells in the intestines and lung epithelium), cellular immunity (T-cell activation), which can be generated in contact with foreign substances or microorganisms, and humoral immunity (IgM and IgG antibodies produced by the B cells).

Recent research shows that both systems are highly entangled.

It appears that most people already have a congenital or general immunity to e.g. influenza and other viruses. This is confirmed by the findings on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, which was quarantined because of a few passengers who died of Covid-19. Most of the passengers were elderly and were in an ideal situation of transmission on the ship. However, 75% did not appear to be infected. So even in this high-risk group, the majority are resistant to the virus.

A study in the journal Cell shows that most people neutralise the coronavirus by mucosal (IgA) and cellular immunity (T-cells), while experiencing few or no symptoms 14.

Researchers found up to 60% SARS-Cov-2 reactivity with CD4+T cells in a non-infected population, suggesting cross-reactivity with other cold (corona) viruses.15

Most people therefore already have a congenital or cross-immunity because they were already in contact with variants of the same virus.

The antibody formation (IgM and IgG) by B-cells only occupies a relatively small part of our immune system. This may explain why, with an antibody percentage of 5-10%, there may be a group immunity anyway. The efficacy of vaccines is assessed precisely on the basis of whether or not we have these antibodies. This is a misrepresentation.

Most people who test positive (PCR) have no complaints. Their immune system is strong enough. Strengthening natural immunity is a much more logical approach. Prevention is an important, insufficiently highlighted pillar: healthy, full-fledged nutrition, exercise in fresh air, without a mask, stress reduction and nourishing emotional and social contacts.

Consequences of social isolation on physical and mental health

Social isolation and economic damage led to an increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse.16

Studies have shown that the more social and emotional commitments people have, the more resistant they are to viruses. It is much more likely that isolation and quarantine have fatal consequences. 17

The isolation measures have also led to physical inactivity in many older people due to their being forced to stay indoors. However, sufficient exercise has a positive effect on cognitive functioning, reducing depressive complaints and anxiety and improving physical health, energy levels, well-being and, in general, quality of life.18

Fear, persistent stress and loneliness induced by social distancing have a proven negative influence on psychological and general health. 19

A highly contagious virus with millions of deaths without any treatment?

Mortality turned out to be many times lower than expected and close to that of a normal seasonal flu (0.2%).20

The number of registered corona deaths therefore still seems to be overestimated.

There is a difference between death by corona and death with corona. Humans are often carriers of multiple viruses and potentially pathogenic bacteria at the same time. Taking into account the fact that most people who developed serious symptoms suffered from additional pathology, one cannot simply conclude that the corona-infection was the cause of death. This was mostly not taken into account in the statistics.

The most vulnerable groups can be clearly identified. The vast majority of deceased patients were 80 years of age or older. The majority (70%) of the deceased, younger than 70 years, had an underlying disorder, such as cardiovascular suffering, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease or obesity. The vast majority of infected persons (>98%) did not or hardly became ill or recovered spontaneously.

Meanwhile, there is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and AZT (azithromycin). Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalisation. Hardly anyone has to die now.

This effective therapy has been confirmed by the clinical experience of colleagues in the field with impressive results. This contrasts sharply with the theoretical criticism (insufficient substantiation by double-blind studies) which in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) has even led to a ban on this therapy. A meta-analysis in The Lancet, which could not demonstrate an effect of HCQ, was withdrawn. The primary data sources used proved to be unreliable and 2 out of 3 authors were in conflict of interest. However, most of the guidelines based on this study remained unchanged … 48 49

We have serious questions about this state of affairs.

In the US, a group of doctors in the field, who see patients on a daily basis, united in “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press conference which has been watched millions of times.21 51

French Prof Didier Raoult of the Institut d’Infectiologie de Marseille (IHU) also presented this promising combination therapy as early as April. Dutch GP Rob Elens, who cured many patients in his practice with HCQ and zinc, called on colleagues in a petition for freedom of therapy.22

The definitive evidence comes from the epidemiological follow-up in Switzerland: mortality rates compared with and without this therapy.23

From the distressing media images of ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) where people were suffocating and given artificial respiration in agony, we now know that this was caused by an exaggerated immune response with intravascular coagulation in the pulmonary blood vessels. The administration of blood thinners and dexamethasone and the avoidance of artificial ventilation, which was found to cause additional damage to lung tissue, means that this dreaded complication, too, is virtually not fatal anymore. 47

It is therefore not a killer virus, but a well-treatable condition.


Spreading occurs by drip infection (only for patients who cough or sneeze) and aerosols in closed, unventilated rooms. Contamination is therefore not possible in the open air. Contact tracing and epidemiological studies show that healthy people (or positively tested asymptomatic carriers) are virtually unable to transmit the virus. Healthy people therefore do not put each other at risk. 24 25

Transfer via objects (e.g. money, shopping or shopping trolleys) has not been scientifically proven.26 27 28

All this seriously calls into question the whole policy of social distancing and compulsory mouth masks for healthy people – there is no scientific basis for this.


Oral masks belong in contexts where contacts with proven at-risk groups or people with upper respiratory complaints take place, and in a medical context/hospital-retirement home setting. They reduce the risk of droplet infection by sneezing or coughing. Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections. 29 30 31

Wearing a mask is not without side effects. 32 33 Oxygen deficiency (headache, nausea, fatigue, loss of concentration) occurs fairly quickly, an effect similar to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity. Some experts even warn of an increased transmission of the virus in case of inappropriate use of the mask.34

Our Labour Code (Codex 6) refers to a CO2 content (ventilation in workplaces) of 900 ppm, maximum 1200 ppm in special circumstances. After wearing a mask for one minute, this toxic limit is considerably exceeded to values that are three to four times higher than these maximum values. Anyone who wears a mask is therefore in an extreme poorly ventilated room. 35

Inappropriate use of masks without a comprehensive medical cardio-pulmonary test file is therefore not recommended by recognised safety specialists for workers. 

Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where staff wear masks and there is precise regulation of humidity / temperature with appropriately monitored oxygen flow to compensate for this, thus meeting strict safety standards. 36

A second corona wave?

A second wave is now being discussed in Belgium, with a further tightening of the measures as a result. However, closer examination of Sciensano’s figures (latest report of 3 September 2020)37 shows that, although there has been an increase in the number of infections since mid-July, there was no increase in hospital admissions or deaths at that time. It is therefore not a second wave of corona, but a so-called “case chemistry” due to an increased number of tests. 50

The number of hospital admissions or deaths showed a shortlasting minimal increase in recent weeks, but in interpreting it, we must take into account the recent heatwave. In addition, the vast majority of the victims are still in the population group >75 years.

This indicates that the proportion of the measures taken in relation to the working population and young people is disproportionate to the intended objectives. 

The vast majority of the positively tested “infected” persons are in the age group of the active population, which does not develop any or merely limited symptoms, due to a well-functioning immune system. 

So nothing has changed – the peak is over.

Strengthening a prevention policy 

The corona measures form a striking contrast to the minimal policy pursued by the government until now, when it comes to well-founded measures with proven health benefits such as the sugar tax, the ban on (e-)cigarettes and making healthy food, exercise and social support networks financially attractive and widely accessible. It is a missed opportunity for a better prevention policy that could have brought about a change in mentality in all sections of the population with clear results in terms of public health. At present, only 3% of the health care budget goes to prevention. 2

The Hippocratic Oath

As a doctor, we took the Hippocratic Oath:

“I will above all care for my patients, promote their health and alleviate their suffering”.
“I will inform my patients correctly.”
“Even under pressure, I will not use my medical knowledge for practices that are against humanity.”

The current measures force us to act against this oath.

Other health professionals have a similar code.

The ‘primum non nocere’, which every doctor and health professional assumes, is also undermined by the current measures and by the prospect of the possible introduction of a generalised vaccine, which is not subject to extensive prior testing.


Survey studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have only succeeded three times in developing a vaccine with an efficiency rate of more than 50%. Vaccinating our elderly appears to be inefficient. Over 75 years of age, the efficacy is almost non-existent.38

Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also see every year in the case of the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a temporary solution, which requires new vaccines each time afterwards. An untested vaccine, which is implemented by emergency procedure and for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity from possible harm, raises serious questions. 39 40 We do not wish to use our patients as guinea pigs.

On a global scale, 700 000 cases of damage or death are expected as a result of the vaccine.41

If 95% of people experience Covid-19 virtually symptom-free, the risk of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.

The role of the media and the official communication plan

Over the past few months, newspaper, radio and TV makers seemed to stand almost uncritically behind the panel of experts and the government, there, where it is precisely the press that should be critical and prevent one-sided governmental communication. This has led to a public communication in our news media, that was more like propaganda than objective reporting.

In our opinion, it is the task of journalism to bring news as objectively and neutrally as possible, aimed at finding the truth and critically controlling power, with dissenting experts also being given a forum in which to express themselves.

This view is supported by the journalistic codes of ethics.42

The official story that a lockdown was necessary, that this was the only possible solution, and that everyone stood behind this lockdown, made it difficult for people with a different view, as well as experts, to express a different opinion.

Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open debates in the media, where different views could be expressed.

We were also surprised by the many videos and articles by many scientific experts and authorities, which were and are still being removed from social media. We feel that this does not fit in with a free, democratic constitutional state, all the more so as it leads to tunnel vision. This policy also has a paralysing effect and feeds fear and concern in society. In this context, we reject the intention of censorship of dissidents in the European Union! 43

The way in which Covid-19 has been portrayed by politicians and the media has not done the situation any good either. War terms were popular and warlike language was not lacking. There has often been mention of a ‘war’ with an ‘invisible enemy’ who has to be ‘defeated’. The use in the media of phrases such as ‘care heroes in the front line’ and ‘corona victims’ has further fuelled fear, as has the idea that we are globally dealing with a ‘killer virus’.

The relentless bombardment with figures, that were unleashed on the population day after day, hour after hour, without interpreting those figures, without comparing them to flu deaths in other years, without comparing them to deaths from other causes, has induced a real psychosis of fear in the population. This is not information, this is manipulation.

We deplore the role of the WHO in this, which has called for the infodemic (i.e. all divergent opinions from the official discourse, including by experts with different views) to be silenced by an unprecedented media censorship.43 44

We urgently call on the media to take their responsibilities here!

We demand an open debate in which all experts are heard.

Emergency law versus Human Rights

The general principle of good governance calls for the proportionality of government decisions to be weighed up in the light of the Higher Legal Standards: any interference by government must comply with the fundamental rights as protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Interference by public authorities is only permitted in crisis situations. In other words, discretionary decisions must be proportionate to an absolute necessity.

The measures currently taken concern interference in the exercise of, among other things, the right to respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, the right to education, etc., and must therefore comply with fundamental rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

For example, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the ECHR, interference with the right to private and family life is permissible only if the measures are necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of public order and the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the regulatory text on which the interference is based must be sufficiently clear, foreseeable and proportionate to the objectives pursued.45

The predicted pandemic of millions of deaths seemed to respond to these crisis conditions, leading to the establishment of an emergency government. Now that the objective facts show something completely different, the condition of inability to act otherwise (no time to evaluate thoroughly if there is an emergency) is no longer in place. Covid-19 is not a cold virus, but a well treatable condition with a mortality rate comparable to the seasonal flu. In other words, there is no longer an insurmountable obstacle to public health.

There is no state of emergency.

Immense damage caused by the current policies

An open discussion on corona measures means that, in addition to the years of life gained by corona patients, we must also take into account other factors affecting the health of the entire population. These include damage in the psychosocial domain (increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse)16 and economic damage.

If we take this collateral damage into account, the current policy is out of all proportion, the proverbial use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

We find it shocking that the government is invoking health as a reason for the emergency law.

As doctors and health professionals, in the face of a virus which, in terms of its harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility, approaches the seasonal influenza, we can only reject these extremely disproportionate measures.

  • We therefore demand an immediate end to all measures.
  • We are questioning the legitimacy of the current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors.
  • Following on from ACU 2020 46 we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It was also at the heart of the fight against the “infodemic”, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law.43

Distribution of this letter

We would like to make a public appeal to our professional associations and fellow carers to give their opinion on the current measures.

We draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which carers can and dare to speak out.

With this open letter, we send out the signal that progress on the same footing does more harm than good, and call on politicians to inform themselves independently and critically about the available evidence – including that from experts with different views, as long as it is based on sound science – when rolling out a policy, with the aim of promoting optimum health.

With concern, hope and in a personal capacity.

  8. President John Magufuli of Tanzania: “Even Papaya and Goats are Corona positive”
  9. Open letter by biochemist Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez to the Dutch chamber
  10. Interview with Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez
  12. Lambrecht, B., Hammad, H. The immunology of the allergy epidemic and the hygiene hypothesis. Nat Immunol 18, 1076–1083 (2017).
  13. Sharvan Sehrawat, Barry T. Rouse, Does the hygiene hypothesis apply to COVID-19 susceptibility?, Microbes and Infection, 2020, ISSN 1286-4579,
  16. Feys, F., Brokken, S., & De Peuter, S. (2020, May 22). Risk-benefit and cost-utility analysis for COVID-19 lockdown in Belgium: the impact on mental health and wellbeing.
  17. Kompanje, 2020
  18. Conn, Hafdahl en Brown, 2009; Martinsen 2008; Yau, 2008
  26. WHO
  29. 29. Contradictory statements by our virologists
  31. Security expert Tammy K. Herrema Clark
  38. Haralambieva, I.H. et al., 2015. The impact of immunosenescence on humoral immune response variation after influenza A/H1N1 vaccination in older subjects.
  39. Global vaccine safety summit WHO 2019
  40. No liability manufacturers vaccines
  42. Journalistic code
  43. Disinformation related to COVID-19 approaches European Commission EurLex, juni 2020 (this file will not damage your computer)
  50. There is no revival of the pandemic, but a so-called casedemic due to more testing.


Posted in COVID, First Amendment, media bias, media bias, news media, Politics, Scandals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot

Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels.

Glenn GreenwaldFeb 161,1601,269
Damage is seen inside the US Capitol building early on January 7, 2021 in Washington, DC (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

What took place at the Capitol on January 6 was undoubtedly a politically motivated riot. As such, it should not be controversial to regard it as a dangerous episode. Any time force or violence is introduced into what ought to be the peaceful resolution of political conflicts, it should be lamented and condemned.

But none of that justifies lying about what happened that day, especially by the news media. Condemning that riot does not allow, let alone require, echoing false claims in order to render the event more menacing and serious than it actually was. There is no circumstance or motive that justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists. The more consequential the event, the less justified, and more harmful, serial journalistic falsehoods are.

Yet this is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, since that riot almost seven weeks ago. And anyone who tries to correct these falsehoods is instantly attacked with the cynical accusation that if you want only truthful reporting about what happened, then you’re trying to “minimize” what happened and are likely an apologist for if not a full-fledged supporter of the protesters themselves.

One of the most significant of these falsehoods was the tale — endorsed over and over without any caveats by the media for more than a month — that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the pro-Trump mob when they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. That claim was first published by The New York Times on January 8 in an article headlined “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It cited “two [anonymous] law enforcement officials” to claim that Sicknick died “with the mob rampaging through the halls of Congress” and after he “was struck with a fire extinguisher.”

A second New York Times article from later that day — bearing the more dramatic headline: “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob” — elaborated on that story:

The New York Times, in a now-”updated” article, Jan. 8, 2021

After publication of these two articles, this horrifying story about a pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on television, in print, and on social media. It became arguably the single most-emphasized and known story of this event, and understandably so — it was a savage and barbaric act that resulted in the harrowing killing by a pro-Trump mob of a young Capitol police officer.

It took on such importance for a clear reason: Sicknick’s death was the only example the media had of the pro-Trump mob deliberately killing anyone. In a January 11 article detailing the five people who died on the day of the Capitol protest, the New York Times again told the Sicknick story: “Law enforcement officials said he had been ‘physically engaging with protesters’ and was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

But none of the other four deaths were at the hands of the protesters: the only other person killed with deliberate violence was a pro-Trump protester, Ashli Babbitt, unarmed when shot in the neck by a police officer at close range. The other three deaths were all pro-Trump protesters: Kevin Greeson, who died of a heart attack outside the Capitol; Benjamin Philips, 50, “the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo,” who died of a stroke that day; and Rosanne Boyland, a fanatical Trump supporter whom the Times says was inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.”

This is why the fire extinguisher story became so vital to those intent on depicting these events in the most violent and menacing light possible. Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump protesters. Three weeks later, The Washington Post said dozens of officers (a total of 140) had various degrees of injuries, but none reported as life-threatening, and at least two police officers committed suicide after the riot. So Sicknick was the only person killed who was not a pro-Trump protester, and the only one deliberately killed by the mob itself.

It is hard to overstate how pervasive this fire extinguisher story became. Over and over, major media outlets and mainstream journalists used this story to dramatize what happened:

Clockwise: Tweet of Associated Press, Jan. 29; Tweet of NBC’s Richard Engel, Jan. 9; Tweet of the Lincoln Project’s Fred Willman, Jan. 29; Tweet of The New York Times’ Nicholas Kirstof, Jan. 9

Television hosts gravely intoned when telling this story, manipulating viewers’ emotions by making them believe the mob had done something unspeakably barbaric:

After the media bombarded Americans with this story for a full month without pause, it took center stage at Trump’s impeachment process. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, the article of impeachment itself stated that “Trump supporters ‘injured and killed law enforcement personnel.’” The House impeachment managers explicitly claimed on page 28 of their pretrial memorandum that “the insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

Once the impeachment trial ended in an acquittal, President Joe Biden issued a statement and referenced this claim in the very first paragraph. Sicknick, said the President, lost “his life while protecting the Capitol from a violent, riotous mob on January 6, 2021.”

The problem with this story is that it is false in all respects. From the start, there was almost no evidence to substantiate it. The only basis were the two original New York Times articles asserting that this happened based on the claim of anonymous law enforcement officials.

Despite this alleged brutal murder taking place in one of the most surveilled buildings on the planet, filled that day with hundreds of cellphones taping the events, nobody saw video of it. No photographs depicted it. To this day, no autopsy report has been released. No details from any official source have been provided.

Not only was there no reason to believe this happened from the start, the little that was known should have caused doubt. On the same day the Times published its two articles with the “fire extinguisher” story, ProPublica published one that should have raised serious doubts about it.

The outlet interviewed Sicknick’s brother, who said that “Sicknick had texted [the family] Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed, he was in good spirits.” That obviously conflicted with the Times’ story that the mob “overpowered Sicknick” and “struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher,” after which, “with a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.”

But no matter. The fire extinguisher story was now a matter of lore. Nobody could question it. And nobody did: until after a February 2 CNN article that asked why nobody has been arrested for what clearly was the most serious crime committed that day: the brutal murder of Officer Sicknick with a fire extinguisher. Though the headline gave no hint of this, the middle of the article provided evidence which essentially declared the original New York Times story false:

In Sicknick’s case, it’s still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner’s review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process.

According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.

The CNN story speculates that perhaps Sicknick inhaled “bear spray,” but like the ProPublica interview with his brother who said he inhaled pepper spray, does not say whether it came from the police or protesters. It is also just a theory. CNN noted that investigators are “vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month’s insurrection.” Beyond that, “to date, little information has been shared publicly about the circumstances of the death of the 13-year veteran of the police force, including any findings from an autopsy that was conducted by DC’s medical examiner.”

Few noticed this remarkable admission buried in this article. None of this was seriously questioned until a relatively new outlet called Revolver News on February 9 compiled and analyzed all the contradictions and lack of evidence in the prevailing story, after which Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, citing that article, devoted the first eight minutes of his February 10 program to examining these massive evidentiary holes.

That caused right-wing media outlets to begin questioning what happened, but mainstream liberal outlets — those who spread the story aggressively in the first place — largely and predictably ignored it all.

This week, the paper that first published the false story — in lieu of a retraction or an explanation of how and why it got the story wrong — simply went back to the first two articles, more than five weeks later, and quietly posted what it called an “update” at the top of both five-week-old articles:

Caption that now sits atop both New York Times articles from Jan. 8 about Officer SIcknick’s death.

With the impeachment trial now over, the articles are now rewritten to reflect that the original story was false. But there was nothing done by The New York Times to explain an error of this magnitude, let alone to try to undo the damage it did by misleading the public. They did not expressly retract or even “correct” the story. Worse, there is at least one article of theirs, the January 11 one that purports to describe how the five people died that day, which continues to include the false “fire extinguisher” story with no correction or update.

The fire extinguisher tale was far from the only false or dubious claim that the media caused to circulate about the events that day. In some cases, they continue to circulate them.

In the days after the protest, numerous viral tweets pointed to a photograph of Eric Munchel with zip-ties. The photo was used continually to suggest that he took those zip-ties into the Capitol because of a premeditated plot to detain lawmakers and hold them hostagePolitico described Munchel as “the man who allegedly entered the Senate chamber during the Capitol riot while carrying a taser and zip-tie handcuffs.”


The Washington Post used the images to refer to “chatters in far-right forums explicitly discussing how to storm the building, handcuff lawmakers with zip ties.” That the zip-tie photo of Munchel made the Capitol riot far more than a mere riot carried out by a band of disorganized misfits, but rather a nefarious and well-coordinated plot to kidnap members of Congress, became almost as widespread as the fire extinguisher story. Yet again, it was The New York Times that led the way in consecrating maximalist claims. “FBI Arrests Man Who Carried Zip Ties Into Capitol,” blared the paper’s headline on January 10, featuring the now-iconic photo of Munchel at the top.

But on January 21, the “zip-tie man’s” own prosecutors admitted none of that was true. He did not take zip-ties with him from home or carry them into the Capitol. Instead, he found them on a table, and took them to prevent their use by the police:

Eric Munchel, a pro-Trump rioter who stormed the Capitol building while holding plastic handcuffs, took the restraints from a table inside the Capitol building, prosecutors said in a court filing Wednesday.

Munchel, who broke into the building with his mom, was labeled “zip-tie guy” after he was photographed barreling down the Senate chamber holding the restraints. His appearance raised questions about whether the insurrectionists who sought to stop Congress from counting Electoral College votes on January 6 also intended to take lawmakers hostage.

But according to the new filing, Munchel and his mother took the handcuffs from within the Capitol building – apparently to ensure the Capitol Police couldn’t use them on the insurrectionists – rather than bring them in when they initially breached the building.

(A second man whose photo with zip-ties later surfaced similarly told Ronan Farrow that he found them on the floor, and the FBI has acknowledged it has no evidence to the contrary).

Why does this matter? For the same reason media outlets so excitedly seized on this claim. If Munchel had brought zip-ties with him, that would be suggestive of a premeditated plot to detain people: quite terrorizing, as it suggests malicious and well-planned intent. But he instead just found them on a table by happenstance and, according to his own prosecutors, grabbed them with benign intent.

Then, perhaps most importantly, is the ongoing insistence on calling the Capitol riot an armed insurrection. Under the law, an insurrection is one of the most serious crises that can arise. It allows virtually unlimited presidential powers — which is why there was so much angst when Tom Cotton proposed it in his New York Times op-ed over the summer, publication of which resulted in the departure of two editors. Insurrection even allows for the suspension by the president of habeas corpus: the right to be heard in court if you are detained.

So it matters a great deal legally, but also politically, if the U.S. really did suffer an armed insurrection and continues to face one. Though there is no controlling, clear definition, that term usually connotes not a three-hour riot but an ongoing, serious plot by a faction of the citizenry to overthrow or otherwise subvert the government.

Just today, PolitiFact purported to “fact-check” a statement from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) made on Monday. Sen. Johnson told a local radio station:

“The fact of the matter is this didn’t seem like an armed insurrection to me. I mean armed, when you hear armed, don’t you think of firearms? Here’s the questions I would have liked to ask. How many firearms were confiscated? How many shots were fired? I’m only aware of one, and I’ll defend that law enforcement officer for taking that shot.

The fact-checking site assigned the Senator its “Pants on Fire” designation for that statement, calling it “ridiculous revisionist history.” But the “fact-checkers” cannot refute a single claim he made. At least from what is known publicly, there is no evidence of a single protester wielding let alone using a firearm inside the Capitol on that day. As indicated, the only person to have been shot was a pro-Trump protester killed by a Capitol police officer, and the only person said to have been killed by the protesters, Officer Sicknick, died under circumstances that are still completely unclear.

That protesters were found before and after the riot with weapons does not mean they intended to use them as part of the protest. For better or worse, the U.S. is a country where firearm possession is common and legal. And what we know for certain is that there is no evidence of anyone brandishing a gun in that building. That fact makes a pretty large dent in the attempt to characterize this as an “armed insurrection” rather than a riot.

Indeed, the most dramatic claims spread by the media to raise fear levels as high as possible and depict this as a violent insurrection have turned out to be unfounded or were affirmatively disproven.

On January 15, Reuters published an article about the arrest of the “Q-Shaman,” Jacob Chansley, headlined “U.S. says Capitol rioters meant to ‘capture and assassinate’ officials.” It claimed that “federal prosecutors offered an ominous new assessment of last week’s siege of the U.S. Capitol by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Thursday, saying in a court filing that rioters intended ‘to capture and assassinate elected officials.’” Predictably, that caused viral social media postings from mainstream reporters and prominent pundits, such as Harvard Law’s Laurence Tribe, manifesting in the most ominous tones possible:Laurence Tribe @tribelawSome of the individuals who breached the Capitol intended to “capture and assassinate elected officials,” federal prosecutors wrote in this new court filing. This is part of what Trump must answer for in his Senate trial and in post-1/20/21 prosecutions January 15th 2021711 Retweets2,127 Likes

Shortly thereafter, however, a DOJ “official walked back a federal claim that Capitol rioters ‘intended capture and assassinate elected officials.’” Specifically, “Washington’s acting U.S. Attorney, Michael Sherwin, said in a telephone briefing, ‘There is no direct evidence at this point of kill-capture teams and assassination.’”

NBC News, Jan. 15, 2021

Over and over, no evidence has emerged for the most melodramatic media claims — torn out Panic Buttons and plots to kill Vice President Mike Pence or Mitt Romney. What we know for certain, as The Washington Post noted this week, is that “Despite warnings of violent plots around Inauguration Day, only a smattering of right-wing protesters appeared at the nation’s statehouses.” That does not sound like an ongoing insurrection, to put it mildly.

All this matters because it inherently matters if the media is recklessly circulating falsehoods about the most inflammatory and significant news stories. As was true for their series of Russiagate debacles, even if each “mistake” standing alone can be dismissed as relatively insignificant or understandable, when they pile up — always in the same narrative direction — people rightly conclude the propaganda is deliberate and trust in journalism erodes further.

But in this case, this matters for reasons far more significant than corporate media’s attempt to salvage the last vestiges of their credibility. Washington, D.C. remains indefinitely militarized. The establishment wings of both parties are still exploiting the emotions surrounding the Capitol breach to justify a new domestic War on Terror. The FBI is on the prowl for dissidents on the right and the left, and online censorship in the name of combatting domestic terrorism continues to rise.

One can — and should — condemn the January 6 riot without inflating the threat it posed. And one can — and should — insist on both factual accuracy and sober restraint without standing accused of sympathy for the rioters.


Posted in disinformation, Donald Trump, First Amendment, media bias, media bias, news media, Politics, Scandals | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

‘See Something, Say Something Online Act’ Punishes Big Tech for Not Snitching


A new bill revitalizes the war on terror’s favorite slogan in service of forcing tech companies to turn over more user data to the government. The “See Something, Say Something Online Act,” introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and co-sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas), is the latest attack on the federal communications law known as Section 230 as well as freedom of speech and online privacy.

The legislation says any interactive computer service provider—that means social media giants, small blogs, podcast hosting services, app stores, consumer review platforms, independent political forums, crowdfunding and Patreon-style sites, dating apps, newsletter services, and much more—will lose Section 230 protections if they fail to report any known user activity that might be deemed “suspicious.”

“Suspicious” content is defined as any post, private message, comment, tag, transaction, or “any other user-generated content or transmission” that government officials later determine “commits, facilitates, incites, promotes, or otherwise assists the commission of a major crime.” Major crimes are defined as anything involving violence, domestic, or international terrorism, or a “serious drug offense.”

For each suspicious post, services must submit a Suspicious Transmission Activity Report (STAR) within 30 days, providing the user’s name, location, and other identifying information, as well as any relevant metadata.

Those submitting the user surveillance reports would henceforth be barred from talking about or even acknowledging the existence of them. STARs would also be exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The bill, which comes amid renewed calls to stamp out domestic terrorism after the Capitol riot, is impressive in managing to be both completely invasive and utterly unconcerned with even appearing to be about protection, since the remedy—report within 30 days—would hardly help stop the commission of crimes. If we were talking about the Capitol riot, for instance, companies who still hadn’t reported posts about it would be OK.

The bill would set up a massive new system of intense user monitoring and reporting that would lead to more perfectly innocent people getting booted from internet platforms. It would provide the government with a new tool to punish disfavored tech companies, and it would enlist all digital service providers to be cops in the failed post-9/11 war on terror and the drug war.

The bill states that some posts facilitating crimes require a STAR to be filed immediately, though it’s vague about what these are (any “suspicious transmission that requires immediate attention” requires being reported immediately). The first example it provides is “an active sale or solicitation of sale of drugs.”

A new federal agency would handle the suspicious activity reports—which could also be submitted by any individual, not just tech companies.

An easy, anonymous, online way for people to flag each other’s social media accounts for the Department of Justice—what could go wrong? (Insert all the eye rolls here.)

Anyone with experience on social media now knows how hyperbolic people can be in describing threatening behavior, how gleeful folks can be in snitching on those they deem unenlightened, and how easy it can be for trolls, abusers, and other ne’er-do-wells to weaponize reporting systems against disliked individuals or marginalized groups. The See Something, Say Something Online Act would put this on steroids—all while ensuring such a glut of reports, including many that are frivolous, politically motivated, or otherwise disingenuous, that federal agents would still be searching for needles in haystacks.

Worse than simply overloading the system, it would make federal agents investigate all sorts of ordinary Americans for harmless comments. It also seems likely to make finding actual terrorists and violent criminals even more difficult.


Drug decriminalization takes effect in Oregon. Residents of the state voted in November to decriminalize small amounts of drugs including heroin, LSD, and meth. “Today, the first domino of our cruel and inhumane war on drugs has fallen, setting off what we expect to be a cascade of other efforts centering health over criminalization,” Kassandra Frederique, executive director of Drug Policy Alliance, said in a statement, continuing:

For the first time in at least half a century, one place in the United States—Oregon— will show us that we can give people help without punishing them. This law is meant to protect people against persecution, harassment and criminalization at the hands of the state for using drugs and instead given access to the supports they need. Over the last year, we have been painfully reminded of the harms that come from drug war policing and the absence of necessary health services and other support systems in our communities. Today, Oregon shows us a better, more just world is possible.


Kroger closes two grocery stores in Long Beach, California, after the city instituted a new hazard pay rule. “Kroger, which owns several supermarket chains, said Monday it would close two stores in Long Beach in response to city rules mandating an extra $4 an hour in ‘hero pay’ for grocery workers during the COVID-19 pandemic,” reports the Los Angeles Times. The Ralphs and Food 4 Less stores that will be closed now employ about 200 people, it says.

Here’s Kroger’s statement:

This misguided action by the Long Beach City Council oversteps the traditional bargaining process and applies to some, but not all, grocery workers in the city. The irreparable harm that will come to employees and local citizens as a direct result of the City of Long Beach’s attempt to pick winners and losers, is deeply unfortunate. We are truly saddened that our associates and customers will ultimately be the real victims of the city council’s actions.

Other cities in California, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Oakland, are considering hazard pay proposals similar to the one in Long Beach.

Posted in Constitution, FBI, First Amendment, Government related, liberal intolerance/persecution | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Cooper’s office creates new position for longtime executive from top N.C. left-wing foundation

January 28, 2021 by David N. Bass

Gov. Roy Cooper’s office is creating a new position and filling it with a longtime staffer from the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, one of the top philanthropic funders of left-wing causes in North Carolina.

The position, called a philanthropy liaison, will be filled by Joy Vermillion Heinsohn. Heinsohn currently serves as assistant director for the Reynolds Foundation and has been with that philanthropy in some capacity since 1998. Heinsohn officially leaves the Reynolds Foundation Feb. 5, and her first day in the governor’s office will be March 1.

According to a news release Wednesday, Jan. 27, the new role is “grant-funded,” although it is not obvious who the funder is. Questions from Carolina Journal on specific duties for the position, plus information on its source of funding, were not returned Thursday. CJ has filed an open-records request with the governor’s office to obtain any grant agreements surrounding the position.

Z. Smith Reynolds actually broke the news Monday, Jan. 25, with a two-paragraph note on its website from Executive Director Maurice “Mo” Green.

In a statement to CJ, Senate Majority Leader Kathy Harrington, R-Gaston, noted that having an outside entity fund a state employee “presents numerous conflict of interest” challenges. “Who will she be accountable to: the taxpayers or the liberal organizations funding her position?” Harrington said.

In a letter to Reynolds Foundation staff, Heinsohn outlined portions of what her new role will entail.

“The philanthropic sector in NC is rapidly growing and changing, with several new foundations on the scene with financial assets that our state has not previously seen,” she wrote. “Simultaneously, our state and nation continue to reckon with issues of racial injustice, democracy, climate justice, education, and economic inequality in ways that now are overlayed with a pandemic and its repercussions. … Moving forward, building partnerships will be central to my new role in state government, which will focus on connecting state government and philanthropy to strengthen our collective ability to improve the quality of life of the people of North Carolina.”

In the past, Heinsohn has been candid about her political views. In an interview from October that identified her as “a Democratic voter from the small city of Winston-Salem,” Heinsohn called for “bringing decency back to the White House” and hoped that North Carolina would vote against former President Trump.

The Reynolds Foundation is a stalwart funder of left-wing nonprofits and activism in the Tar Heel State, including partisan causes such as Blueprint NC. Blueprint NC was responsible for a 2013 memo calling on progressive groups to “cripple” and “eviscerate” Republican legislative leaders. The Reynolds Foundation gave $2.1 million to Blueprint NC between 2009 and 2013 alone.

Heinsohn’s hiring comes six months after the Reynolds Foundation pledged to give $50,000 to a task force created by Cooper to study racial equity in the criminal justice system.

The hiring also appears to be another step in recent moves by the Cooper administration to tap talent from left-wing philanthropies for official government posts. In August 2019, Cooper appointed Damon Circosta to the state Board of Elections. Circosta, who was subsequently made chair of the SBE, is executive director of the A.J. Fletcher Foundation, another top supporter of left-wing activism in North Carolina. Longtime Capitol Broadcasting Company CEO Jim Gooodman chairs Fletcher’s board of directors. Goodmon’s wife, Barbara, serves as the foundation’s president.

David Bass is a freelance writer for Carolina Journal.

categories: CJ ExclusivesEconomic Growth & DevelopmentHistoryNorth CarolinaPolitics & ElectionsState Government

tags: Gov. Roy CooperJoy Vermillion Heinsohnleft-wing activismZ. Smith Reynolds Foundation


Posted in corruption, Government related, NC politics, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Democrats’ rule: Bow before them or burn

Delusion is the marker of one-party rule and the progressive left

By Everett Piper –
Saturday, January 16, 2021


The year 2021 is hardly out of diapers, and the words of the Old Testament prophet echo through our streets: 

“Woe to those who draw iniquity with the cords of falsehood … who call evil good and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight …  Woe unto those who take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!”

Yes, the year is young, but the purge is as old as time. Isaiah’s warning reminds us that the high priests of self-aggrandizement and hypocrisy have always stood in the offing. They have always been at the city gates. Patient as father time, waiting and waiting for civilization’s walls to crack, staring wide-eyed at the ramparts, watching and watching for history’s citizens to slumber in their “safety,” ignorant of the imminent attack. 

Theirs is a religion of human sacrifice; the sacrifice of mind, body and soul. On their altar, tradition, experience, reason and revelation must die. Robed in their vestments of Inquisition, they ready the stake. With pious calls to “turn down the heat of our rhetoric,” they fan the fire. With their hateful “love,” they strike the match. Refuse to recant your sin of speaking out against their sin, and you will pay. 

Shouting “judge not!” they judge you. “You marched with the pagan Constantine,” they cry. “In the name of Christianity, your Christendom be damned. Your patriotism is unpatriotic. Your nationalism betrays the nation. We will not tolerate your intolerance. We hate you for your ‘hate.’”

This is their mantra. They actually chant this nonsense. In their darkened minds, such pabulum stunningly seems to make some sense.  

They are oh so sure that nothing is sure, and they know that nothing can be known. They are absolutely confident there are no absolutes, and they do not hesitate to tell you that you are absolutely wrong. 

This is the world of the progressive left. This is the land of one-party rule. In their kingdom, simple math and logic are no longer objective facts but merely tainted products of “privilege.” Two plus two is no longer four. Biology and genetics must kneel in obeisance to fabrication and fantasy. Defending science makes you a science-denier. Delusion is their identity. Saying that a man isn’t a woman and a woman is not a man makes you the one who is insane. 

Arguing for the lives of all races means you’re a racist. If you march for freedom, you’re a fascist. You are guilty of intrusion if you simply want to be left alone. You will pay homage to “inclusion” or you will be excluded. 

Killing millions of helpless babies makes them the champions of children.  

Pretending a female is a fantasy rather than a fact makes them feminists.  

While waving banners of “love trumps hate,” they scream of their hate for Donald Trump. Preaching that they’ll bring America together, they call half of Americans “maggots,” “deplorables,” “domestic terrorists” and “ignorant rubes.”   

Their virtue signaling is void of virtue. You will be made to care. And they don’t care.  

This is a party that flaunts freedom of speech while it cancels speech it believes should not be free. These are people with the temerity to lecture about violence at our nation’s capital after shamelessly spending months fomenting violence coast to coast. 

This is a “church” that shouts, “Finally, we’ve elected a decent man” when they just elected a man who stands credibly accused of digitally raping a former female aid. This is a cabal that condemns the lies of an outgoing president while choosing a new one who is a proven plagiarist and persistent, if not pathological, liar. 

Welcome to America under the rule of One. Welcome to the temple of the Beltway Baal. Sacrifice your soul or be silenced. Recant or be burned.  

“In the New Town, the god who got things done bore the name Moloch. [His] worshipers … were members of a mature and polished civilization. To them, Moloch was not a myth, or at any rate, his meal was not a myth. These highly civilized people really met together to invoke the blessings of heaven on their empire by throwing [people] in the fire.” — G.K. Chesterton, “The Everlasting Man”

• Everett Piper (, @dreverettpiper), a columnist for The Washington Times, is a former university president and radio host. He is the author of “Not a Daycare: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery).

Posted in Collectivism, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases volume 39, pages1059–1061(2020)


In a preliminary clinical study, we observed that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was effective against SARS-CoV-2 by shortening the duration of viral load in Covid-19 patients. It is of paramount importance to define when a treated patient can be considered as no longer contagious. Correlation between successful isolation of virus in cell culture and Ct value of quantitative RT-PCR targeting E gene suggests that patients with Ct above 33–34 using our RT-PCR system are not contagious and thus can be discharged from hospital care or strict confinement for non-hospitalized patients.


An outbreak of an emerging disease (Covid-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 started in Wuhan, China, then rapidly spread in China, and was declared pandemic on March 12, 2020, by the WHO [1,2,3]. Currently, the overall case fatality rate is about 2.3% in China, which is likely an overestimate because most patients have mild symptoms and are thus not tested [4]. Because of a study showing that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, we tested hydroxychloroquine as a treatment in Covid-19 patients [56]. Our results show that in treated patients, the nasopharyngeal viral load of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients was cleared in only 3 to 6 days. Our results also suggest a synergistic effect of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, two molecules previously demonstrated to be active in vitro against Zika and Ebola viruses [7,8,9,10] and to prevent severe respiratory tract infections when administered to patients suffering viral infection [11]. These results are of great importance because a recent paper has shown that the median duration of viral RNA detection in patients suffering from Covid-19 in China was 20 days, with the longest duration being 37 days [12]. We are now facing a massive influx of patients in need of treatment and hospitalization, ideally in infectious disease wards equipped with NSB3 modules with negative pressure. Thus, in addition to obtaining complete disappearance of virus RNA in respiratory samples, having a PCR-based indicator of loss of contagiousness is a major priority for discharge from infectious diseases ward. Based on a set of 183 samples from 155 patients, we observed a significant relationship between viral RNA load and culture positivity.

The Méditerranée Infection University Hospital Institute in Marseille is the reference center for highly infectious diseases for Southeastern France. It was the only center in this region with diagnostic tests available during the first weeks of the epidemic in France and received patients’ samples from this whole area. From the day of the first positive test, on February 27 until March 12, 4384 clinical samples were tested by RT-PCR for 3466 patients. Since the beginning of this crisis and until now, on March 26, we inoculated 1049 samples and could obtain in culture 611 SARS-CoV-2 isolates. A total of 183 samples testing positive by RT-PCR, including 9 sputum samples and 174 nasopharyngeal swabs from 155 patients, were inoculated in cell cultures. SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity in patient samples was assessed by real-time reverse transcription-PCR targeting the E gene, as previously described [13]. For all patients, 500 μL of nasopharyngeal swab fluid (Virocult, Elitech, France) or sputum sample were passed through 0.22-μm pore sized centrifugal filter (Merck Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) and then were inoculated in 4 wells of 96-well culture microplates containing Vero E6 cells (ATCC CRL-1586) into Minimum Essential Medium culture medium with 4% fetal calf serum and 1% glutamine. All samples were inoculated between 4 and 10 h after sampling and kept at + 4 °C before processing. After centrifugation at 4000×g, microplates were incubated at 37 °C. They were observed daily for evidence of cytopathogenic effect. Two subcultures were performed weekly. Presumptive detection of virus in supernatant showing cytopathic effect was done using the SU5000 scanning electron microscope (Hitachi High-Tech Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and then confirmed by specific RT-PCR targeting E gene. Variation of culture positivity rate was assessed statistically as the proportion of variance explained by Ct value and considered adequately fitted if the coefficient of determination (R2 statistic) was > 50%.

Among the 183 samples inoculated in the studied period of time, 129 led to virus isolation. Of these, 124 samples had detectable cytopathic effect between 24 and 96 h. Blind subcultures allowed obtaining 5 additional isolates only. We observed a significant relationship between Ct value and culture positivity rate (Fig. 1). Samples with Ct values of 13–17 all led to positive culture. Culture positivity rate then decreased progressively according to Ct values to reach 12% at 33 Ct. No culture was obtained from samples with Ct > 34. The 5 additional isolates obtained after blind subcultures had Ct between 27 and 34, thus consistent with low viable virus load.

Fig. 1

In the present work, we observe a strong correlation between Ct value and sample infectivity in a cell culture model. On the basis of this data, we can deduce that with our system, patients with Ct values equal or above 34 do not excrete infectious viral particles. It was observed that SARS-CoV-2 was detected up to 20 days after onset of symptoms by PCR in infected patients but that the virus could not be isolated after day 8 in spite of ongoing high viral loads of approximately 105 RNA copies/mL of sample, using the RT-PCR system used in the present study [14]. Progressive decrease of viral load over time is observed in all studies conducted in Covid-19 patients with positive detection being observed until 17–21 days after onset of symptoms, independently of symptoms [15]. These previous observations suggested that isolation of patients after diagnosis was mandatory. However, due to prolonged shedding of RNA in respiratory samples, the criteria for ending the isolation of a patient were not clear, and there was a need to correlate viral load to cultivable viruses. Our results show that in our system of RT-PCR, we can assess that patients with Ct equal or above 34 may be discharged. In 6 patients under the current therapeutic protocol used at our institute (hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin), Ct values > 34 were obtained between days 2 and 4 post-treatment [6]. There is no previous correlation demonstrated between level viral load in respiratory samples and infectivity. However, this reduction is the basis of all procedures used for the validation of disinfectants [16]. One limitation of our work is that it cannot be extrapolated to other hospital centers since they use different systems of sample transport, of RNA extraction, and of PCR with different primers and probes; i.e. it has been suggested that sensitivity of amplification based on Gene E detection would be less sensitive than ORF1ab or N genes. We propose that each center perform its own correlation between culture results and viral RNA load from patients’ samples. Another potential limitation is that nasopharyngeal swab fluid might be less representative than sputum samples. However, from the data obtained from patients rather tested in sputum, the viral load follows the same reduction with time of evolution than upper respiratory specimens [17].


  1. 1.Lai CC, Shih TP, Ko WC, Tang HJ, Hsueh PR (2020) Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19): the epidemic and the challenges. Int J Antimicrob Ag 55:105924. Article Google Scholar 
  2. 2.Wang LS, Wang YR, Ye DW, Liu QQ (2020) A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) based on current evidence. Int J Antimicrob Ag 105948.
  3. 3.WHO (2020) Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020.
  4. 4.Wu Z, McGoogan JM (2020) Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 323.
  5. 5.Yao X, Ye F, Zhang M, Cui C, Huang B, Niu P, et al (2020) In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis.
  6. 6.Gautret P, Lagier J-C, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, et al (2020) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Ag 105949.
  7. 7.Retallack H, Lullo ED, Arias C, Knopp KA, Laurie MT, Sandoval-Espinosa C et al (2016) Zika virus cell tropism in the developing human brain and inhibition by azithromycin. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:14408–14413. Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  8. 8.Madrid PB, Panchal RG, Warren TK, Shurtleff AC, Endsley AN, Green CE et al (2015) Evaluation of Ebola virus inhibitors for drug repurposing. ACS Infect Dis 1:317–326. Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  9. 9.Bosseboeuf E, Aubry M, Nhan T, de Pina JJ, Rolain JM, Raoult D et al (2018) Azithromycin inhibits the replication of Zika virus. J Antivirals Antiretrovir 10:6–11. Google Scholar 
  10. 10.Cao B, Parnell LA, Diamond MS, Mysorekar IU (2017) Inhibition of autophagy limits vertical transmission of Zika virus in pregnant mice. J Exp Med 214:2303–2313. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  11. 11.Bacharier LB, Guilbert TW, Mauger DT, Boehmer S, Beigelman A, Fitzpatrick AM et al (2015) Early administration of azithromycin and prevention of severe lower respiratory tract illnesses in preschool children with a history of such illnesses: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:2034–2044. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  12. 12.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z et al (2020) Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet.
  13. 13.Amrane S, Tissot-Dupont H, Doudier B, Eldin C, Hocquart M, Mailhe M, et al (2020) Rapid viral diagnosis and ambulatory management of suspected COVID-19 cases presenting at the infectious diseases referral hospital in Marseille, France, − January 31st to March 1st, 2020: a respiratory virus snapshot. Travel Med Infect Di 101632.
  14. 14.Woelfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, Seilmaier M, Zange S, Mueller MA, et al (2020) Clinical presentation and virological assessment of hospitalized cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in a travel-associated transmission cluster. Medrxiv.
  15. 15.Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, Liang L, Huang H, Hong Z et al (2020) SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med 382:1177–1179. PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  16. 16.Kampf G, Todt D, Pfaender S, Steinmann E (2020) Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents. J Hosp Infect 104:246–251. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  17. 17.Yu F, Yan L, Wang N, Yang S, Wang L, Tang Y et al (2020) Quantitative detection and viral load analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in infected patients. Clin Infect Dis.

Download references


The authors are indebted to David Scheim for critical lecture and correcting English.


This research was funded by the French Government under the “Investissements d’avenir” (Investments for the Future) program managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR, French National Agency for Research) (reference: Méditerranée Infection 10-IAHU-03), by Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, and by European funding FEDER PRIMI.

Author information


  1. IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, FranceBernard La Scola, Marion Le Bideau, Julien Andreani, Van Thuan Hoang, Clio Grimaldier, Philippe Colson, Philippe Gautret & Didier Raoult
  2. Aix Marseille Univ, IRD, APHM, MEPHI, Marseille, FranceBernard La Scola, Marion Le Bideau, Julien Andreani, Clio Grimaldier, Philippe Colson & Didier Raoult
  3. Aix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, SSA, VITROME, Marseille, FranceVan Thuan Hoang & Philippe Gautret
  4. Thai Binh University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Thai Binh, Viet NamVan Thuan Hoang

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bernard La Scola or Didier Raoult.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The protocol was approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospital Institute Méditerranée Infection (No. 2020-01).

Informed consent

All subjects gave a written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Posted in COVID, medical | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


19 December 2018

The Overton window is a political concept that describes how the public’s opinion on a subject can be changed. It states that ideas that were previously considered preposterous can become accepted in the long run.

According to this concept, not even taboo subjects are free of its effects. The general opinion that society has on issues such as incest, pedophilia, or cannibalism could radically change. For this to happen, it’s not necessary to brainwash or implement a dictatorial regime but to develop a series of advanced techniques whose implementation would go unnoticed by society.

Origins of the Overton window concept

Joseph Overton studied this concept. He observed that for each area of public management, the public accepted only a narrow range of potential policies. These policies don’t change when politicians change their minds. Society chooses them.

Joseph Overton developed a vertical model of policies ranging from “the freest” at the top of the spectrum to “the least free” at the bottom. This is related to government intervention in which acceptable policies are framed in a window that can move within this axis.


Stage 1: From the unthinkable to the radical

In the first stage, cannibalism is in the lowest acceptance level in the Overton window. Society considers it immoral. It’s considered disgusting and preposterous. At this point, the window is closed and unmoving.

To begin changing public opinion, scientists start studying it. For scientists, there shouldn’t be any taboo subjects. Thus, the scientific community starts analyzing the traditions and rituals of some tribes.

Stage 2: From the radical to the acceptable

After stage 1, the idea has gone from being unthinkable to being discussed. In the second stage, people begin to accept the idea. With scientists’ conclusions, society views those who refuse to acquire knowledge about the subject intransigent.

People who resist will start to be seen as fanatics who oppose science. The intolerant are publically condemned as the idea loses its negative connotations. The name “cannibalism” may even change to something like anthropophagy. Little by little, the media makes eating human flesh acceptable and respectable.

Stage 3: From the acceptable to the sensible

The consumption of human flesh becomes a common right. The idea is now sensible. Meanwhile, those who continue to oppose the idea will continue to be criticized. These people would be considered radicals who are against a fundamental right.

On the other hand, the scientific community and the media insists that there are many cases of cannibalism in human history.

Stage 4: From the sensible to the popular

Now, cannibalism becomes a favorite topic. The idea begins to appear in movies and television series as something positive. At the same time, historical figures related to these practices receive praise. The phenomenon becomes increasingly multitudinous and continues to reinforce its positive image.

Stage 5: From the popular to the political

The Overton window, which was closed at the beginning, has been opened wide. In this last stage, the legislative machinery that will legalize the phenomenon begins to prepare itself. Cannibalism supporters consolidate in politics and begin to seek more power and representation.

Thus, an idea that was first considered unthinkable and immoral has come to be established in the collective consciousness as a right. This happened through a concept that can change the public’s perception of any idea, however crazy it may be.


Posted in Mind Control, political correctness, Politics, propaganda, social engineering | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leftism – Not Just Wrong, But Evil

We cannot afford a lack of moral clarity in our political civil war.Fri Feb 8, 2019 

Mark Tapson

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager once made an insightful distinction between the political left and right. The right, he noted, generally sees the left as wrong but not evil, whereas the left sees the right not merely as wrong but as evil. This was a valid assessment once upon a time, but as the left has increasingly exposed itself in the Trump era as rabidly illiberal, irrational, and immoral, it is time for the right to acknowledge that the left is not merely wrong, but evil.

What is evil? Let us set theological explanations aside for the moment and settle on a practical definition upon which most can agree: if cruelty means the willful disregard for human suffering, even taking pleasure in inflicting suffering on others, then evil is profound cruelty. It is a malevolence so dark and bottomless that ordinary people cannot fathom it. Psychologists may prefer less highly-charged terms to describe people who commit unconscionable acts, but evil is as evil does, and what leftism has done over and over again throughout history and around the world is provide a worldview which justifies perpetrating unimaginable horrors on untold numbers of victims.

To be clear: evil is hardly the sole domain of the left. It can inhabit individuals of any color, sex, political persuasion, or religious belief. But as an ideology, Progressivism – the rebranding of Communism – embraces totalitarianism and absolute statist control, which always and everywhere leads to misery, corruption, and brutality, and never elevates humanity. Can anyone look objectively at the ghastly devastation wrought by Communism in the 20th century – the gulags and the mass starvation, the torture and executions, the existential fear and hopelessness, the tens of millions dead and countless more lives destroyed – and not conclude that leftism is an ideology of evil? Add to that its unholy alliance with fundamentalist Islam today to subvert the whole of Western civilization, and there can be no doubt.

At the core of the true leftist is a hatred for anyone and anything that stands in the way of his or her lust for power over others: the nuclear family, Christianity, the Constitution, Donald Trump, etc. As David Horowitz had noted on numerous occasions, during a presidential debate in October 2016, candidate Trump spoke more naked truth about leftists than any establishment Republican would ever have dared when he said that his opponent Hillary Clinton had “tremendous hate in her heart.”

Let us zero in on specific, recent examples of the left’s cruel methodology. Keep in mind that the contemporary leftist, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, has been mentored either directly or indirectly by the influential, Mephistophelean strategist Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals, whose thirteenth and final rule has transformed the left’s entire modus operandi into the politics of personal destruction: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Alinsky dedicated his book, as you may recall, to Lucifer.

Nothing has demonstrated this evil stratagem quite as starkly recently as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings last fall, which degenerated into a circus of demonic behavior by leftists gleefully determined to destroy Kavanaugh and his family over a single, decades-old, unsubstantiated accusation of sexual assault. The sick smears from even the mainstream media that Kavanaugh was a gang rapist, belligerent drunk, and pedophile helped wake up many people to the boundless cruelty in which the left revels.

Similarly, the left pounced on the opportunity to demonize and destroy the Covington Catholic high school kids involved in a more recent controversy completely manufactured by the left-dominated media. Trump-deranged former comedienne Kathy Griffin called for their doxing. Late-night talk show hosts, Twitter’s blue-checked media elites, and leftist pundits like disgraced Islam apologist Reza Aslan “joked” about punching the face of Nick Sandmann, the white 16-year-old at the center of the controversy. He and his family received death threats. One could list dozens of examples of Trump supporters victimized by leftist violence over the last two or more years. Add to this the persecution of conservative students and visiting speakers in universities, the nihilist thuggery of Antifa, and the lawfare of LGBT activists out to destroy Christian bakers and photographers, and can anyone claim that the left’s collective heart is not, as Trump said of Hillary’s, full of hate?

More examples: Virginia politicians including Governor Ralph Northam recently repulsed countless Americans for casually endorsing the abortion of babies all the way up to literally the moment of birth and even beyond. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson brought Monica Klein, the co-founder of a political messaging firm called Seneca Strategies, on his show to ask her opinion of this shocking pro-abortion extremism, and for the entirety of the nearly four-minute segment Klein belligerently stonewalled his question, hurling irrational accusations and predictable Democrat Party talking points, refusing to address third trimester abortions except to fiercely defend a woman’s right to discard her child. If the left is so literally hell-bent on having the right to put an infant – not a mere “clump of cells” but a live infant outside the mother’s womb – to death, then there is no moral limit to what they will do in service to their satanic vision.

The Democrat Party is the face of Moloch, the Canaanite god whom Milton called the “horrid King besmear’d with blood / Of human sacrifice.” It is a cult of criminality and death. On every political issue, Democrats take the side of chaos and destruction, crime and disorder. They hype the threat of white supremacism while whitewashing Islamic terrorism. They are actively engaged in erasing our history and undermining our rights. They support open borders over national security; sanctuary cities for criminal aliens and the abolishment of ICE over law-abiding citizens and legal immigration; infanticide over the sacredness of human life; the dismantling of Western civilization over its preservation. This is not simply wrong – this is evil.

Conservatives who believe that it is still possible to reason with the left and engage them in fair-and-square policy debates are clinging to a failed strategy, sadly. We must accept the reality that leftists have long since abandoned rational rules of engagement, if they ever had any; instead, they operate from a hate-filled mob mentality, a bloodlust for power, and a complete absence of moral boundaries. We cannot afford a lack of moral clarity about the undeclared civil war raging across the United States of America.


Posted in Collectivism, Communism, Politics, Socialism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dems Had No Choice BUT to Rig the Election

This time they were ready — because there was too much at stake.Fri Dec 4, 2020 

Ayad Rahim

Looking back at the unusual election we just had, and viewing it in the context of political events going back 150 years, it’s clear that the Democrats had no choice but to rig the presidential election — and, now, they’re going for all the marbles.

In the last weeks of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was drawing tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters several times a day, and people across the land, and at sea, formed massive rallies and caravans of their own. Meanwhile, the Biden camp was barely limping along, with one or two funereal gatherings a week, before, at best, a few dozen people (sometimes, overwhelmingly outnumbered by Trump supporters); the campaign’s apparent strategy was to minimize the candidate’s exposure (and let the media do the work for them) — not only because the candidate was feeble and the campaign advocated lockdowns, but also because evidence began emerging of the Biden family’s dealings with foreign oligarchs and corrupt countries — most importantly, Communist China.

So, as election day approached, things were looking good for the president. Indeed, as the results came in on election night, the president was headed for re-election. He was ahead in the electoral college, and had big leads in the handful of remaining states he needed to win.

Then, suddenly, the counting stopped. Late at night, five decisive states announced at the same time that they stopped counting. Has the counting of votes ever stopped on election night in any election, let alone a presidential election? It’s as if, with a couple of minutes left to play in a basketball game, one team is way ahead and “running away with it,” and the other team is down and dejected, staring defeat in the face; and all of a sudden, the referees stop the game for the first time ever, and for no stated reason. Then they send the team that’s winning, home, blindfold them, and tie their hands; leave the trailing team on the court by itself, with control of the scoreboard and the keys; and ask them to send in the final score, whenever they want. If there were fans in the stands, they’d yell, “How much they payin’ you, ref?”

* * *

In hindsight, though, maybe we should have seen this coming because a “perfect storm” of major forces and trends came together to make sure that Joe Biden and the Deep State would not lose.

The most pressing concern was the Biden family. Their pipeline to funds from around the world had been exposed, and was now threatened, and if the country’s chief law-enforcement officer (who’d already “blown the whistle” on the family’s criminal dealings) continued in that job, members of the Biden family, including “the Big Guy,” would be at risk of criminal prosecution. As far as the Bidens were concerned, and quite a few other powerful players too, that simply could not happen. Nor was it only a matter of graft. Being “on the take” from Communist China meant that Joe Biden had “sold out” the country to the ascendant global power, and was unlikely to be working solely for America’s interests; awareness of that could not be allowed to see the light of day — such knowledge, and further probes into the family’s dealings with foreign oligarchs and corrupt countries, especially Communist China, had to be crushed. In addition to the Bidens, there were other crime families, and countless crooked “politicians,” at risk of being exposed, of having their livelihoods threatened, and of being criminally prosecuted. Nobody wants that.

A more significant factor at play was the Deep State. The Swamp rats had been drawn out of the sewers, for all to see. Their unchecked leeching off the country, and their growing grip on society, were being questioned, and might even be checked. The rats wanted to get back to chomping as before, and they were supremely confident they could do it; for, even after the lights were turned on, they still got away with success after success — with almost no legal, financial, professional, or political consequences. And it’s an impressive roll call of accomplishments: spying on domestic presidential campaigns (not only Donald Trump’s, but Ted Cruz’s and Ben Carson’s too); sabotaging a presidential transition and administration; fabricating tales of treason and foreign control of the president (and, with the media in tow, having half the country believe it, and believing so much more); an endless string of preposterous and farcical charges and investigations (on the public’s dime); and attempting to cripple the country — all of which profoundly affected the political process and the country’s elections. And all of that, after eight years of politicizing and corrupting the I.R.S., the Drug Enforcement Administration, the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the judiciary, the intelligence services, and the military — with a corrupt and fawning press, covering everything up, instead of shining a light.

Joining the Deep State were the media, Big Tech, schools, and entertainment — most of them, in bed with Communist China, and wanting to maintain the marriage of convenience, undisturbed. So, when the president drew attention to the doings of the Swamp and China, they all turned their guns on the only thing that stood in their way; and they proceeded to thoroughly malign and demonize the president, members of his family, his associates, and half of the country — with the other half, lapping it up. And having recently succeeded in other demonization campaigns, and passing off an America-hating Marxist on the country, the Democrats and their allies knew they were dealing with a politically illiterate and naive nation, which meant they could pull off anything they wanted, with no risk to themselves and the rest of the Swamp — they were invincible.

With all of that in mind, why should the Swamp rats “stay in the closet” and operate in the dark — far easier, quicker, and cheaper to be direct and up-front, and the effect on the citizenry would be more powerful and long-lasting. Why play “cloak and dagger,” when you can hit them with a sledgehammer, and pound them into submission. For the Democrats and the Deep State, drunk on victory and confidence, and bolstered by a sense of moral superiority and entitlement, a little election tomfoolery was a necessary and logical next step — everything else had succeeded (“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”) — just another coup attempt — and one that would finally finish off the job. Nothing’s going to happen to them — nothing ever does. So they were going to dare the country — “Prove it!” — and they may not even have feared being taken up on the dare. They would show what they can do, who’s really in charge, with a demonstration of power politics at its rawest — and “You will like it!” As every dictator knows, the ultimate goal is for people to believe the lie; and to make that happen, the propaganda organs have to repeat the lie enough times, until the public doesn’t know any better. Which brings to mind Groucho Marx’s line “Who you gonna believe — me, or your lying eyes?,” and the media’s polar-opposite depictions of the support for Trump and Biden.

In addition, the public had become a bit of a nuisance.

…the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government

And could only win it back

By increased work quotas. Would it not in that case be simpler for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another?

— Bertolt Brecht, “The Solution”

So, the people needed to be taught a lesson — for good. Our Deep State had simply lost its patience with the electorate — you’ve had your bit of fun (as Mark Steyn puts it) — never again! Don’t you know, “You can’t fight City Hall” — don’t even think about itJust leave us alone, to go about our merry ways, and resume our Marxist revolution and the march towards government as the ultimate arbiter of all things. Why, it may not even be necessary for the people to “get” the lesson — just take the choice out of their hands. Joseph Stalin reputedly said, “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

And with big-city machines ready to do what they do best (maybe the best part of the Democrats’ game, since at least the 1860s — aided, now, by the mail-in games), the Democrats and the Deep State knew exactly what had to be done; the way to safety, and possibly a final solution, was in plain sight — simple and assured — irresistible — and, again, with no likely consequences. They’d gotten away with so much worse — what’s a little manipulation of the votes.

Finally, as Scott Adams points out, in addition to opportunity, true believers had motive on their side — and what a motive: to remove the equivalent of Hitler from power. And there were certainly enough people willing to commit crimes to make that happen, and confident they could get away with it — they’d done it before.

And, now, for the coup de grace, the Democrats have Georgia on their mind — with two Senate seats to be had. And with control of the Senate, come two new states, a few more Supreme Court seats, and…“Good night, Irene!” As Chuck Schumer, the potential leader of the Senate, put it, “Now we take Georgia, and then we change the world” — which makes Atlanta the next stop on the Great Heist Train.

So, this year, the Democrats would take no chances — they wouldn’t make the same mistake the stunned Hillary camp made to the shocking results on election night, four years ago. This time, they were ready — because there was just too much at stake.

Ayad Rahim is a bookseller and former journalist.


Posted in corruption, coup, Deep State, Donald Trump, election, Vote Fraud | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment